68
the following: "We are surrounded by economically ruined States, therefore make no revolution." Now, what does this mean? Shall we, can we, wait until Capitalism regains all its forces, and then only set out against the flourishing Capitalist States? I also overheard an interjection by Comrade Tausik who interrupted a speaker.
The speaker was pointing out that we, Czechs, should not wait for other States. Comrade Tausik exclaimed: "Then there should be a good movement also in Poland!" Now, I am of the opinion that there ought to be a good movement in Poland, and such a movement does exist there, in spite of the White terror. But Comrade Tausik says about the same thing that is being said by the Second International. The Second International says: "I am ready to strike, but my neighbour must strike at the same time." How do they expect this to happen? Perhaps in such a manner that one fine morning the leaders will meet in common counsel and exactly appoint the date upon which the revolution shall break out everywhere. This would be a splendid thing, to be sure.
But revolutions have a habit of not arriving in such a simple manner that it should be necessary only to agree at some conference, for the revolution to break out by itself. Now, the outbreak of revolution depends upon numerous factors. Indeed, according to such theories one could ask, why should backward Russia make the first start and not capitalist, enslaved America? (Vivid approval). We must do away with these theories of the Second and Two-and-a-half International. In no case would we advise any party to strike the blow right now. No such proposal could ever come from the Executive. Such an important question must naturally be weighed a thousand times before the decision is taken. But we are dealing here with questions of quite a different nature.
Must we allow leaders to get up at a Party conference and simply spit upon the International? (Ap-
